ISPs react, sort of support network neutrality—with caveats

In the wake of a major network neutrality speech this morning by FCC Chairman …

In the wake of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's major speech this morning supporting network neutrality, the responses have flooded in—and they're surprisingly positive, even from ISPs. AT&T even goes so far as saying it could support all six of the rules that Genachowski wants... as long as they're kept to wired networks.

For net neutrality backers, today's announcement was a major victory, and it was also no surprise that Internet companies like Google strongly support the move. But the ISP reaction was surprisingly muted—even, in some cases, fairly positive.

In one important sense, the "openness" advocates have already won the first round of the debate: the way the issue is framed. As you can see from the statements below, no companies will come out against the idea of being "open," at least when it comes to wired networks. Let's take a look.

The ISPs speak

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) represents cable operators, but the first two lines of its response aren't necessarily what one might expect from its CEO: "Chairman Genachowski has given a very thoughtful speech about a complex and important set of policies," said Kyle McSlarrow. "As someone who almost 10 years ago was himself involved with an Internet startup, I applaud his vision of preserving an open Internet in order to promote entrepreneurship without permission."

What about Comcast, which was itself smacked down last year by the FCC for its BitTorrent shenanigans? "Comcast applauds Chairman Genachowski’s goal of ensuring that the Internet remains open as it is today, and we welcome the dialogue suggested by his comments."

Verizon isn't a fan of the new rules, but largely because the company is already quite open (it certifies all sorts of devices for use on its wireless network, Skype is allowed on its 3G data network, and it imposes no filtering on its wired network). A company representative said after the Genachowski speech that it was hard to see why the new rules were needed, but only because he sees little or no marketplace harm. What a far cry from places like Canada, where major ISPs gleefully throttle back P2P traffic for half the day.

As for AT&T, a giant in both the wired and wireless worlds, the company has no problem with network neutrality. If the FCC wants to turn its four existing principles into enforceable rules, go for it! Genachowski wants to add to more rules to the list, one for non-discrimination and one for transparency? Not a problem.

"AT&T has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has conducted its business accordingly," said Jim Cicconi, the company's top legal affairs man. "We were also early supporters of the FCC's current four broadband principles and their case-by-case application to wired networks. To the extent that the chairman seeks to bolster the FCC's legal authority to enforce these principles, we would support him. We have also indicated publicly that, despite any compelling evidence of abuses that need correction, AT&T could also consider endorsing a fifth principle relating to actions that are unreasonably discriminatory and that cause material harm. Finally, we have never had concerns with disclosure or transparency regarding network management decisions so long as such requirements are reasonable."

Is this the same ISP industry we all know and love? It is, and that means that the "openness" lovefest comes with a set of caveats. Perhaps the biggest one comes courtesy of AT&T, which offers Genachowski everything he wants... so long as it doesn't apply to wireless.

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America, wireless services," continued AT&T's Ciccioni. "We have applauded this FCC for emphasizing that its regulatory decisions would be data-driven. We would thus be very disappointed if it has already drawn a conclusion to regulate wireless services despite the absence of any compelling evidence of problems or abuse that would warrant government intervention."

Comcast wants to make sure that there's plenty of room for network management, though it has no problem disclosing its practices in general times (and has been quite open about the new setup it put in place after the P2P fiasco).

And NCTA praises Genachowski's "recognition of the necessity for, and difficult tensions inherent in, reasonable network management practices and of the value of new business models that will support continued innovation and investment... While we look forward to working with Chairman Genachowski and his colleagues, we will continue to present facts and data to the Commission that suggest that any regulation in this arena should be approached with great caution and only in the most targeted way.”

Part of the mildness here is a real commitment to openness, though that term is understood differently at different companies. Part of it is political; these companies need to work with (and will be regulated by) the FCC, and there's no advantage in penning savage replies when the process is this nascent.

The think tanks attack

And part of it comes from the knowledge that the various think tanks supported by the big ISPs will play the attack dog role with gusto. For instance, the Progress & Freedom Foundation is out with a much, much stronger response to the Genachowski speech.

According to PFF president Ken Feree, "I’m troubled to learn that the FCC is embarking on an exercise that would probably result in rules that are unconstitutional and almost certainly beyond the FCC's statutory jurisdiction. Aside from the legal issues it raises though, I find myself at a loss to understand why the administration wants to start meddling with a sector of the economy that, despite a challenging macro-economic environment, is performing pretty well by any rational standard. What exactly is the problem they are trying to remedy? ... It's almost as if they are trying to turn a story of success into one of failure."

PFF is funded by AT&T, Comcast, Cox, NCTA, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, and Verizon (though also by Google and Microsoft, which tend to support network neutrality).

The Free State Foundation also weighed in with a much tougher statement than those from most of the ISPs, saying, "Chairman Genachowski's proposal to adopt Internet regulation rules, whether wittingly or not, is based on too much regulatory hubris and immodesty. Genachowski concedes that 'we cannot know what tomorrow holds for the Internet,' and 'the Internet is a dynamic network which continues to grow and evolve.' But then he presumes that all innovation takes place at the edge of the Internet and, consistent with the strict separation regime his nondiscrimination principle would enforce, should continue to do so. While he says 'this is not about government regulation of the Internet," it most certainly is."

ISPs are more likely to talk tough as the process heats up, but the initial cautious responses and the commitments to openness certainly make it look like some version of network neutrality will be adopted at the FCC over the next year. That might even be a good thing for ISPs, which tend to have more pull with the FCC than they do with Congress, and where rules can easily be massaged by future Commissioners.

Legislation can be a bit harder to alter or revoke, though, which is why it's significant that Congress is continuing its own push for a network neutrality law. Rep Ed Markey (D-MA) said today that "rules put forward by the Commission in this area would be a key complement to the bill that Chairman Waxman, Congresswoman Eshoo and I are advancing to codify these vital protections for consumers and innovators, and I look forward to working with the Commission and my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead." In other words, the bill will proceed.

Under pressure from both the FCC and Congress, ISPs might well decide that they can get a better deal and a fairer hearing from the engineers at the FCC and so support Genachowski's initiative as a way to head of Congressional intervention. Whatever happens, the network neutrality ember today roared back to life as a forest fire, and there's never any telling quite how such a blaze will burn itself out.

39 Reader Comments

I support net neutrality on wire-line networks, but I have to say, RF spectrum is a very limited and expensive resource and those that purchase it should have the ability and right to police it for the good of the service as a whole. You can only squeeze so much data into a fixed amount of spectrum, even with advanced modulation/coding techniques, and when its a shared resource between dozens or hundreds of end users, the provider should be able to regulate what one person does so it doesn't cripple the network.

Originally posted by joethesinner:I support net neutrality on wire-line networks, but I have to say, RF spectrum is a very limited and expensive resource and those that purchase it should have the ability and right to police it for the good of the service as a whole. You can only squeeze so much data into a fixed amount of spectrum, even with advanced modulation/coding techniques, and when its a shared resource between dozens or hundreds of end users, the provider should be able to regulate what one person does so it doesn't cripple the network.

Explain to me how preventing traffic discrimination based on content or protocol, and managing the network to prevent overload or abuse, are mutually exclusive.

Spectrum is expensive, but then again wireline networks were expensive at first too. I really see no difference between wireline and wireless, well other than their bandwidth. But then you just have to offer a lower speeds or put data caps in place. There is no need to block appplications outright.

Think how much more innovation there would be in the wireless sector if wireless providers played the same role as the wired ISPs. You pick a provider, get issued some kind of wireless key which you enter into any wireless-enabled device, and you get charged for whatever you use (or some unlimited plan).

No more bullshit where each network vies for device superiority and arrange selective agreements. No more gouging for simple services that could be provided cheaply by 3rd parties. Wireless companies should have the shit regulated out of them.

Originally posted by joethesinner:I support net neutrality on wire-line networks, but I have to say, RF spectrum is a very limited and expensive resource and those that purchase it should have the ability and right to police it for the good of the service as a whole. You can only squeeze so much data into a fixed amount of spectrum, even with advanced modulation/coding techniques, and when its a shared resource between dozens or hundreds of end users, the provider should be able to regulate what one person does so it doesn't cripple the network.

Explain to me how preventing traffic discrimination based on content or protocol, and managing the network to prevent overload or abuse, are mutually exclusive.

Traffic shouldn't be discriminated on content (unless its illegal, immoral or fattening), but in certain situations the protocol can be highly detrimental to the network.

I work for a company that manufactures equipment to do IP over satellite, and someone running BitTorrent or Skype improperly configured can, at best, bring down a modem at a site; at worst several people on a network can cause so much congestion that it brings down hundreds of sites do to an overload of TCP connections crashing a piece of equipment.

When working in low bandwidth networks, traffic shaping based on protocol, and blocking certain services can be crucial to making the entire system work, especially when certain services need a fixed amount of bandwidth to function properly.

Originally posted by joethesinner:I support net neutrality on wire-line networks, but I have to say, RF spectrum is a very limited and expensive resource and those that purchase it should have the ability and right to police it for the good of the service as a whole. You can only squeeze so much data into a fixed amount of spectrum, even with advanced modulation/coding techniques, and when its a shared resource between dozens or hundreds of end users, the provider should be able to regulate what one person does so it doesn't cripple the network.

Explain to me how preventing traffic discrimination based on content or protocol, and managing the network to prevent overload or abuse, are mutually exclusive.

Traffic shouldn't be discriminated on content (unless its illegal, immoral or fattening), but in certain situations the protocol can be highly detrimental to the network.

I work for a company that manufactures equipment to do IP over satellite, and someone running BitTorrent or Skype improperly configured can, at best, bring down a modem at a site; at worst several people on a network can cause so much congestion that it brings down hundreds of sites do to an overload of TCP connections crashing a piece of equipment.

When working in low bandwidth networks, traffic shaping based on protocol, and blocking certain services can be crucial to making the entire system work, especially when certain services need a fixed amount of bandwidth to function properly.

By mentioning a specific protocol instead of arguing about a specific activity in which a user utilitizes a higher proportion of bandwidth, you are simply labeling that protocol as "bad for networks" and seem to be justifying traffic shaping. Most people here agree, we wouldn't be opposed to network management, as it isn't unlimited, however deciding which protocols or applications to allow and which ones not to, and not actually considering how much bandwidth a person ACTUALLY uses, is tantamount to censorship. I mean, does it seem fair that it's ok to download 100 10MB files in a month but not stream 1 video of my choosing on a wireless network? They use the same amount of data. It's this kind of hypocrisy that net neutrality aims to solve.

Did you really expect any different from wireless companies that lose billions if they lose their fat profits on text messaging plans and international calling? The situation is simply that they're in hot water either way, because if they fight the network neutrality, someone will definitely go after their exclusive contracts... and that's worse for AT&T :P

By mentioning a specific protocol instead of arguing about a specific activity in which a user utilitizes a higher proportion of bandwidth, you are simply labeling that protocol as "bad for networks" and seem to be justifying traffic shaping. Most people here agree, we wouldn't be opposed to network management, as it isn't unlimited, however deciding which protocols or applications to allow and which ones not to, and not actually considering how much bandwidth a person ACTUALLY uses, is tantamount to censorship. I mean, does it seem fair that it's ok to download 100 10MB files in a month but not stream 1 video of my choosing on a wireless network? They use the same amount of data. It's this kind of hypocrisy that net neutrality aims to solve.

The simple fact of the matter that most people don't seem to understand is that some protocols are intrinsically bad for certain types of networks. Even with throttled back throughput by end users, most peer to peer applications simply crush 802.11 networks - which are widely deployed in rural areas due to the economies of scale in wireless data services.

Do these wireless carriers not have an obligation to their customers to provide the best service possible? What if that means blocking a particular type of application or protocol because its' use is intrinsically harmful to the network?

Is it fair to 20 users on an access point to be subjected to poor quality service and packet loss to the point of complaining "dialup is better than this!" because one person fires up bit torrent?

RF networks are by their very nature half duplex systems with limited bandwidth and resources. As a matter of course, they simply can not be treated the same as wireline networks.

I'm well aware of how network protocols work, I have industry certifications for Cisco equipment and I'm in school for a networking degree.

There is no hard choice between blocking protocols or allowing the network to crash. Limit open TCP connections, limit packets per second, whatever is being overloaded by a single client can be managed without blocking an entire protocol.

Originally posted by mrsteveman1:I'm well aware of how network protocols work, I have industry certifications for Cisco equipment and I'm in school for a networking degree.

There is no hard choice between blocking protocols or allowing the network to crash. Limit open TCP connections, limit packets per second, whatever is being overloaded by a single client can be managed without blocking an entire protocol.

I guess the problem is that it demands slightly better equipment and you can't get a pat on your shoulder from media industry for censoring p2p.

The problem with traffic "shaping" is that suddenly ISP's will start to become content providers or ally with content providers, and may use this technique to discriminate other providers.

Picture a cable company who partners with some new video sharing service. Suddenly they might start slowing down all Youtube traffic to favour their own buddies.

If the problem is network overload, then 1) stop selling deceitful "unlimited data" connections, since you clearly can't handle "unlimited", and 2) use a per-MB (or GB, or whatever) fee. This is transparent, non-discriminatory and reflects the alleged bandwidth scarcity.

Originally posted by Ziffelbat:I think a better way to prevent ISPs from abusing their near monopoly powers is to do away with the near monopoly. Network unNeutrality is a symptom, not the disease.

Entirely right. The government created this "problem." Monopoly privileges granted to different providers, the regulation of the airwaves creating artificial scarcity, misc. other barriers to entry, etc. An open market would serve customer demands. Further placing this in the hands of the government will only create further opportunity for manipulation and pit special interest groups against each other for control of the reigns. It doesn't take much understanding in economics, history, or political theory to see this.

throttling bandwidth is a moot point if we can get broadband defined at a speed that is actually broadband. No one is talking about not throttling low speed connections. They know that has to happen. Line of site, troposcatter and sattelite are not on the debate here. wired and wireless 'broadband " are. if you cant reach the speed necessary then you are not broadband and shouldn't be held to these rules

Originally posted by Ziffelbat:I think a better way to prevent ISPs from abusing their near monopoly powers is to do away with the near monopoly. Network unNeutrality is a symptom, not the disease.

Entirely right. The government created this "problem." Monopoly privileges granted to different providers, the regulation of the airwaves creating artificial scarcity, misc. other barriers to entry, etc. An open market would serve customer demands. Further placing this in the hands of the government will only create further opportunity for manipulation and pit special interest groups against each other for control of the reigns. It doesn't take much understanding in economics, history, or political theory to see this.

The obvious solution is to make the infrastructure social and than access and services in it can be what ISPs/telcos compete over. That way you can get maximum efficiency with least monopoly as there is a much lower barrier to entry.

Originally posted by Cadallin:This. Telecommunications gives rise nearly inherently to natural monopolies. If a natural monopoly occurs in an area of necessary infrastructure, the most sensible course is nationalization.

Not necessarily. The electric industry isn't nationalized, and it runs decently (I'm not fool enough to say it's running great).

Originally posted by matt_w_1:I can't help but think that there are some corporate shills running around on the big internet tech news sites after this announcement. Some of the postings here and at wired are very suspicious.

Perhaps. More likely I think they are just victims of misinformation that management is shoveling. Tell all your employees that X is bad for the company and they will start telling other people that X is bad for their jobs, writing letters to congress, etc. There's no stronger supporter than someone who thinks they have direct information that might effect their livelihood. The fact that the original information was wrong or an outright lie doesn't even factor in if it sounds convincing enough.

I agree the granted monopolies need to go where they still exist, but this is never going to be a functional free market, the cost of entry is too high especially in the wireless space, and the response to market demand is always going to be too slow, to say nothing of the conflicts of interest among carriers.

If things keep going the way they are right now though, we're going to continue seeing last mile providers who REALLY REALLY want to be content providers instead, and content providers who really really like the idea of selling exclusive right to their content to a specific ISP.

And none of them want to be dumb pipes, even though that is exactly what allowed for the rapid innovation at the ends of the network we saw over the last 10+ years. They're going to turn the internet into an expensive subscription service complete with all the same conditions and gotchas as the wireless phone space.

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America, wireless services,"

WOW! That's laying the BS on thick. Let's see... a oligopoly (and often a regional monopoly) where each company entirely controls several vertically-related industries. I think "... most competitive..." must be a misspelling of "...most abusive..." in that sentence.

Earl Grey's three points above are perfectly correct. (well, 50Mbps is a bit of hyperbole...) The device/network/data integration should not be permitted. The fact that I can use the crappy on-phone browser for free, but they'll charge me per kb if I use an alternative network application is simply disgusting.

Originally posted by Cadallin:This. Telecommunications gives rise nearly inherently to natural monopolies. If a natural monopoly occurs in an area of necessary infrastructure, the most sensible course is nationalization.

Not necessarily. The electric industry isn't nationalized, and it runs decently (I'm not fool enough to say it's running great).

It may not be nationalized but it is HEAVILY regulated which is basically the same point. And care to remember when they went to deregulate a few years back? The companies created an artificial scarcity of energy on the west coast resulting in states which hadn't been deregulated yet to stop their deregulation proceeedings.

You do realise the "brown outs" of the early 2000's in California were unnecessary and created by deregulated companies taking their plants offline to force higher prices.

Originally posted by mrsteveman1:I'm well aware of how network protocols work, I have industry certifications for Cisco equipment and I'm in school for a networking degree.

There is no hard choice between blocking protocols or allowing the network to crash. Limit open TCP connections, limit packets per second, whatever is being overloaded by a single client can be managed without blocking an entire protocol.

I guess the problem is that it demands slightly better equipment and you can't get a pat on your shoulder from media industry for censoring p2p.

in entirely unsurprising news, the usual gang of idiot obstructionist senators has already jumped on board with the ISPs

quote:

While it's no surprise that the big three carriers -- AT&T (NYSE:T), Verizon (NYSE:VZ) and Comcast (NSDQ:CMCSA) -- oppose government oversight of broadband policies, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas ), ranking member on the Senate Commerce Science, and Transportation Committee, also voiced concerns.

Following Net neutrality proposals made by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowsk Monday, Sen. Hutchison introduced an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that would prohibit the FCC from expending funds to develop and implement new regulatory mandates. The amendment is co-sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

"I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading," Hutchison said in a statement. "We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations. The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives."

Originally posted by +Griz:in entirely unsurprising news, the usual gang of idiot obstructionist senators has already jumped on board with the ISPs

quote:

"I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading," Hutchison said in a statement. "We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations. The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives."

I think Senator Hutchison meant to say "The new regulatory mandates and restrictions could prevent certain companies, to whom I am deepy beholden, from maximizing their profits even though they have monopoly positions. There has not been enough public outcry regarding the potential miuse of the monopoly position to prevent me from trying to preserve their position and ensure I have a steady stream of campaign financing."

Or perhaps she is just confused about the relationship between free markets, monopoly positions and innovation in this space and I am being unkind.

Originally posted by Cadallin:This. Telecommunications gives rise nearly inherently to natural monopolies. If a natural monopoly occurs in an area of necessary infrastructure, the most sensible course is nationalization.

Not necessarily. The electric industry isn't nationalized, and it runs decently (I'm not fool enough to say it's running great).

It may not be nationalized but it is HEAVILY regulated which is basically the same point. And care to remember when they went to deregulate a few years back? The companies created an artificial scarcity of energy on the west coast resulting in states which hadn't been deregulated yet to stop their deregulation proceeedings.

You do realise the "brown outs" of the early 2000's in California were unnecessary and created by deregulated companies taking their plants offline to force higher prices.

As I stated, I'm not fool enough to say they're run in any resemblence of "great". However, there is a large difference between 'heavily regulated' and 'nationalized'. The airlines are heavily regulated, but not nationalized. Amtrak, on the other hand...

As to the California brownouts, the deregulation was on the trading part of the industry (as instigated by the villains of my town, Enron). Enron was the key initiator, with help from the electric companies, of the "shortage" concept that caused the brownouts.

Originally posted by +Griz:in entirely unsurprising news, the usual gang of idiot obstructionist senators has already jumped on board with the ISPs

quote:

While it's no surprise that the big three carriers -- AT&T (NYSE:T), Verizon (NYSE:VZ) and Comcast (NSDQ:CMCSA) -- oppose government oversight of broadband policies, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas ), ranking member on the Senate Commerce Science, and Transportation Committee, also voiced concerns.

Following Net neutrality proposals made by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowsk Monday, Sen. Hutchison introduced an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that would prohibit the FCC from expending funds to develop and implement new regulatory mandates. The amendment is co-sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

"I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading," Hutchison said in a statement. "We must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations. The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace. These new regulatory mandates and restrictions could stifle investment incentives."

This is why I hate my congresspeople here in Texas. It's people like Kay Bailey Hutchison and Lamar Smith that give these companies a blank check at the expense of consumers. Writing to them is like talking to a brick wall too. Half the time the letter I get back doesn't even address what my letter was about, and even when it does, it is basically just a regurgitation of whatever BS the companies are peddling. Blah blah vibrant marketplace, blah blah innovative, blah blah bullshit.

Oh BS! The ISP's aren't supporting it. Look at the language in their statements carefully as its full of potential loop holes. Like AT&T's statement - "Finally, we have never had concerns with disclosure or transparency regarding network management decisions so long as such requirements are reasonable."

See the "so long as such requirements are reasonable" part? And who decides whats reasonable? They do, and are free to define whats reasonable at any time they choose, just as Comcast decided that TCP resets were reasonable to throttle users. If Comcast really supported this they would withdraw their court case. There is just too much duplicity in their statements.

On the other hand they really don't have a choice but to accept it as the alternative means strict regulation which would probably not make them happy at all.

So they play the game again for another twenty years and continue to reinforce their straglehold on internet access.

It sees to me that we could use a push to change the perception of internet connections to a basic utility, like water and power. The same should go for telecom services. Very, very few people can legitimately conduct business, either professional or private, without internet and phone.

Once they telcos and cablecos can no longer claim they are providers of a service, all of their excuses for limits and lack of support start to dry up.

It may mean a switch to a more metered approach to data, but that may put things in perspective too. I can choose to water my lawn as many times a week as I want, and I pay for what water I use. Same with power, same with gas. If data costs money per packet, just set up realistic billing units like everything else and be darned with the rest of the debate.

Originally posted by Jackattak:Based on the major ISP's comments (especially Comcast's) I feel as though I woke-up in an alternative universe or something.

Not to worry. If you read it carefully you'll see it's nothing but doublespeak. They think it would be bad press to voice their opposition to something that seems like a good thing for everyone [but them], so they say they're okay with it while behind the scenes funneling money in a panic to their think tanks and company congressmen to do the opposition from a "neutral" position.

Just yesterday when I heard about the FCC's statements I predicted to a friend that the ISPs would respond by sending lobbying into overtime to try to get congress to put the brakes on the FCC and stop this from going forward, as congress is more friendly to the ISPs. Today I found that my prediction was precisely correct.

Originally posted by Grimmash:It sees to me that we could use a push to change the perception of internet connections to a basic utility, like water and power. The same should go for telecom services. Very, very few people can legitimately conduct business, either professional or private, without internet and phone.

Once they telcos and cablecos can no longer claim they are providers of a service, all of their excuses for limits and lack of support start to dry up.

It may mean a switch to a more metered approach to data, but that may put things in perspective too. I can choose to water my lawn as many times a week as I want, and I pay for what water I use. Same with power, same with gas. If data costs money per packet, just set up realistic billing units like everything else and be darned with the rest of the debate.

Thing with metering data is that running cost for the equipment is practically the same if you use 10% or 100% of the available bandwidth. So unlimited is still completely possible. Just have simple balancing where every user gets their minimum bandwidth and depending on current use they can get more than that.

"We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America, wireless services,"

WOW! That's laying the BS on thick. Let's see... a oligopoly (and often a regional monopoly) where each company entirely controls several vertically-related industries. I think "... most competitive..." must be a misspelling of "...most abusive..." in that sentence.

Earl Grey's three points above are perfectly correct. (well, 50Mbps is a bit of hyperbole...) The device/network/data integration should not be permitted. The fact that I can use the crappy on-phone browser for free, but they'll charge me per kb if I use an alternative network application is simply disgusting.

Well, I don't think the 50mbs is hyperbole because you will never be able to receive true HD IP TV on low speed networks. You simply won't have the bandwidth capacity to move the bits if you are streaming one or two (or more) HD programs simultaneously. What you'll get will be what people get now...horribly compressed HD streams that come out all blocky on their expensive HD screens/monitors; colors gone...details gone. You may as well just stream low-def and get used to crappy quality.